Chapter 6 - Adolescent Drug Use

Reviewing the connection between paradigms and theories to understand adolescent drug use

There is evidence that about half of adolescents aged 10 to 17 use, and sometimes abuse, substances. These youths will also engage or come in contact with other risky behaviors, such as delinquency, violence, homicide, unprotected sexual intercourse, homicide and suicide. To understand these problems, Clark (2010) summarizes and explains theoretical frameworks and paradigms to organize and comprehend adolescent drug use.

            Before we can understand how theoretical frameworks can solve problems of adolescent drug use, it is important to realize what these things are. Clark (2010) says that “theories are sets of concepts and propositions that explain a phenomenon that stem from a set of assumptions that are influenced by the social, economic, and political context of the theorist.” A paradigm is an organizing standard that describes. There are four main sociological paradigms: functionalist, radical structuralist, interpretive, and radical humanist.

So how do sociological perspectives relate to adolescent drug use and interventions for this subset? Helping professionals build their practices and interventions around certain theoretical concepts, comparable to a worldview. This would shape what type of clients professionals take on and what type of interventions they use. The following are explanations about the views of each perspective:

·         Traditional functionalist – believe in incremental change and evidence-based practice. This paradigm would encourage the use of therapies that have been well researched and proven.

·         Radical structuralist – move for empowerment and social reform. This would involve seeking policy change that would better the lives of their clients.

·         Interpretive – believe that context must be the determinant for solving a social problem. Says that there are multiple truths and realities that must be taken into consideration. The goal of a practitioner would be to fully understand their client and what their perception is of their problem.

·         Radical humanist – anything that limits is considered oppressive. A practitioner with this perspective would not survive in any type of agency.

Which paradigm is the best to use? At the present moment, most theories and research are in the functionalist paradigm, but this may not be the best option. Multiple paradigms should be used simultaneously to obtain knowledge about a social phenomenon, such as adolescent drug use. Prevention programs could also be created from each paradigm and be equally effective.

Although it is sometimes helpful to work out of a particular paradigm, this idea has not really been discussed in class in connection with addictions. Our book has constantly suggested using the strengths perspective, which seems to be anti-paradigm. Paradigms may limit practitioners because they would not be able to start wherever the client is and focus on their definition of their problem. The interpretive paradigm seems to be the closest thing to a strengths perspective approach, but this has not been mentioned. This leads me to believe that most practitioners in the addictions field would suggest not to become attached to a certain paradigm.

References

Clark, T. T. (2010). Reviewing the connection between paradigms and theories to understand adolescent drug use. Journal Of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 19(1), 16-32. doi:10.1080/10678280903400479